Disposed

M. Rajkamal v. M. Prathap, I.a.S., and 3 others

Madras HC5 Jun 2026CONT P/694/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt petition alleging non-compliance of writ directions directing action against villagers conducting 'Katta Panchayat', registration of FIR against unarrayed persons, and police protection. Respondents reported full compliance with filed compliance reports; the petition was closed, with general observations on Investigating Officers monitoring prosecution after charge-sheet filing.

What the court decided

AI extract

M. Rajkamal Vs M. Prathap, I.a.S., and 3 others — Contempt of Court | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

Cont P.No.694 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 05.06.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶6

Cont P.No.694 of 2026

M.Rajkamal

… Petitioner

Versus

Mr.M.Prathap, I.A.S., The District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur.

¶11

Mr.G.Ravikumar The Sub Collector, Ponneri, Tiruvallur District.

¶12

Mr.Somasundaram, The Tahsildar, Ponneri Taluk, Tiruvallur District.

¶13

Mr.Kaaliraj The Inspector of Police, Thirupalaivanam Police Station, Tiruvallur District. ... Respondents

¶14

Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying to punish the respondents for wilful disobedience of the order dated 11.11.2024 in W.P.No.30175 of 2024.

¶15

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

Cont P.No.694 of 2026

¶18

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.V.Prasad Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3 Mr.M.Dinesh Government Counsel for R4

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Contempt Petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of

¶21

the order dated 11.11.2024 made in W.P.No.30175 of 2024.

¶22

There is no representation for the petitioner.

¶23

The petitioner had filed W.P.No.30175 of 2024, seeking

¶24

consideration of his representation dated 08.05.2024, wherein he requested the authorities to take appropriate action against respondents 5 to 13 therein for allegedly conducting “Katta Panchayat”, ostracising him from the village, and interfering with his peaceful day-to-day life along with the other villagers. By order dated 11.11.2024, this Court directed the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation and take suitable action against respondents 5 to 13 therein and also directed the fourth respondent police to

¶25

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Cont P.No.694 of 2026 register FIR against the remaining private respondents who had not been arrayed as accused, conduct investigation in accordance with law, and file a final report within a reasonable time. The respondent-Police was also directed to provide adequate police protection to the petitioner. Alleging non-compliance of the said directions, the present contempt petition has been filed.

¶28

When the matter was taken up for hearing on 17.04.2026, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that, based on the petitioner’s complaint, six additional persons had been included as accused in the final report. However, since the petitioner expressed a grievance that he continued to face difficulties from the accused persons, this Court directed the first respondent/District Collector to enquire into the matter and take appropriate steps.

¶29

Today, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.30175 of 2024 and in the present contempt petition have been fully

¶30

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Cont P.No.694 of 2026 complied with. It was further submitted that there is presently no threat, coercion or interference from the accused persons, and the petitioner and his family members are able to lead their life peacefully. Compliance reports have also been filed before this Court.

¶33

Recording the said submission and the compliance reports filed by the respondents, this Contempt Petition is closed.

¶34

Before parting with the matter, this Court observes that, in several

¶35

criminal cases, after the filing of the final report or charge sheet, the Investigating Officers do not effectively monitor the progress of the prosecution. It is imperative that the Investigating Officers continue to follow up the proceedings even after the filing of the charge sheet, ensure the presence of witnesses during committal as well as trial proceedings, and extend all necessary assistance for the expeditious disposal of cases. This Court has also observed that, in certain cases, the non-appearance of Investigating Officers for examination before the trial Court results in avoidable delays. Since the evidence of the Investigating Officer constitutes an important part of the prosecution case, the Home Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu is directed to issue appropriate instructions to all

¶36

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

Cont P.No.694 of 2026

¶39

the Investigating Officers to ensure their timely participation in the criminal proceedings.

¶40

The Registrar General, High Court, Madras and the Director

¶41

General of Police, Chennai, Tamil Nadu shall file reports as to how many cases are pending at the stage of examination by the Investigating Officers throughout Tamil Nadu, on the next date of hearing.

¶42

List the matter for reporting compliance on 19.06.2026.

¶43

05.06.2026

¶44

¶45

Note : Issue Order copy on 10.06.2026 Copy to

¶46

The Home Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Fort St. George,

¶47

Chennai - 600009.

¶48

The Director General of Police, No. 1, Kamarajar Salai, Mylapore, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600004.

¶49

The Registrar General, High Court, Madras.

¶50

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

Cont P.No.694 of 2026

¶53

P.VELMURUGAN, J.,

¶54

¶55

Cont P.No.694 of 2026

¶56

05.06.2026

¶57

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M. Rajkamal v. M. Prathap, I.a.S., and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M. Rajkamal v. M. Prathap, I.a.S., and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.v.Thiyagarajan Vs Guthi Govindarajulunaidu(Died)

R.Karthick Vs Mrs. Sivakumar

Dr.Vijaya Rani, I.a.S., Vs High Court of Madras

Govindakudi Appakutty Ayyar Charity Vs v.Mohanachandran, IAS and 2 others

Chinnappaiya Nainar @ Chinnath Vs Annamalai

Seeniammal Vs Pandiyan